Queen Victoria's emerald tiara belongs to one of her immediate descendents--no clue who it is, although Munn knows. The sapphire gothic tiara, seen in Winterhalter's portrait of Queen Victoria, was given to Queen Mary's daughter, Mary the Princess Royal as a wedding gift (along with a stunning sapphire necklace and other sapphire pieces) when she married Lascalles, who later became the Earl of Harewood. Upon her death, the family sold the necklace and many other pieces (the Duke of Westminster has one of her fringe tiaras) but the sapphire piece remains with the Harewood family. Have you read Munns book: Tiaras: A History of Splendor? He discusses the piece in there.

__________________

__________________Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill

Yeah, the Countess of Harewood claims they only have the one tiara (Gothic Sapphire).

I had no idea that the Westminster fringe was from the Princess Royal.

The emerald tiara is visible in the Winterhalter portrait of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert seated with their children (it's a huge thing with versions on the Isle of Wight and in the Gallery at Buckingham Palace). I read somewhere that it belonged to the prussians via Princess Victoria (Empress of Germany). However, I've never seen anything to substantiate this, so it might just as easily have belonged to one of the other branches of the family. I think we would have seen it, though, had it been passed to the Schleswig-Holsteins (as Marie-Louise left her jewellery to the royal family, for the most part).
Yet again, the emerald tiara was photographed recently...I think maybe it was sold? There were rumours that a royal victorian tiara had been sold a while back.

Now that I think about it, I had a photo of one of Victoria's daughters (or even granddaughters) wearing the emerald tiara. I will look for it, because that would tell us who inherited it.

I saw a photo of one of Queen Victoria's granddaughters wearing the tiara in Munn's Bible--but he said she had borrowed it. Munn knows who has it, and I'd wager it is still in England or we would have seen it by now.

Incentally--HM is wearing her mother's ruby necklace tonight! I've been waiting for this--she looks wonderful. I don't like her other two ruby necklaces--well, I hate the Saudi one in yellow gold, and I like the other--but this one she is wearing tonight for the State Banquet is my favorite. Her Majesty looks regal, as usual.

__________________Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill

The ruby necklace was originally set in opals (along with the Indian Oriental Circlet) and was left to the Crown by Queen Victoria. Queen Alexandra disliked opals, thinking they bring bad luck, and had both the necklace and tiara re-set with rubies she had been given by the Indian princely states.

Queen Elizabeth selected the pieces when she became Queen Consort in 1937 and wore them until her death. They returned to the Crown and can only be worn in right of it by a Queen.

Thank you Warren. I was sadly in need of a really good fix and that photo with HM saluting President Sarkozy is a doozy!

But oh how I would love to have seen a photo taken from behind her of his face. Bet his eyes were popping at the sheer magnificance of the Burmese ruby tiara, and blinded by the brilliance of the sunburst brooch.

__________________MARG"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes

Queen Elizabeth selected the pieces when she became Queen Consort in 1937 and wore them until her death. They returned to the Crown and can only be worn in right of it by a Queen.

What an interestingly and completely wrong thing to say. Anyone can wear any jewels that aren't the Crown Jewels (the various crowns, scepters, etc etc). Of course, HM would be unlikely to lend out her personal jewels willy-nilly, but that doesn't mean that there's something saying only she is permitted to wear them. For example, look at how many things she's let Camilla borrow.

What an interestingly and completely wrong thing to say. Anyone can wear any jewels that aren't the Crown Jewels (the various crowns, scepters, etc etc). Of course, HM would be unlikely to lend out her personal jewels willy-nilly, but that doesn't mean that there's something saying only she is permitted to wear them. For example, look at how many things she's let Camilla borrow.

Queen Victoria designated a number of pieces to "be worn by all future Queens by right". These include the Albert Sapphire Brooch, The Double Bar brooch, The Jubilee Necklace, The State Diadem, the Oriental Circlet and a number of other pieces. On the death of Queen Alexandra in the 1920s a number of items that had been her wedding gifts were added to the list by Queen Mary.

__________________Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.

The ginormous brooch also belonged to Q.Victoria and was the center part of a three part stomacher. Q.Alexandra and Q. Mary both wore the whole thing for their coronations while QEQM only wore the center part.
I was thinking the necklace and earrings must of been part of the opal jewelry own by Q. Victoria that was reset with rubies by Q.Alexandra, and not a wedding present to QEII from her father as Hello Magazine claimed (she got sapphire jewelry from her father on her wedding). According to Amazon.com: The Jewels of Queen Elizabeth II: Her Personal Collection: Leslie Field: Books Q. Mary never wore them because her first fiance gave her a ruby engagement ring, but QEQM wore them. Plus it also "ties" the jewelry together nicely - Burmese Rubies in the tiara, earrings, and necklace; earrings, necklace and brooch orginally belonged to Q. Victoria.
As to Q. Alexandra's superstition that opals bring bad luck, my mother claims that's only for people who wear it who weren't born in October, the month for which opal is the precious birthstone. Of course she was born in October so.......

In the preface, I believe, when Munn is talking about having sent letters out to different families; he recalls sending one to the Harewoods asking delicatly is they had anything of royal provenance and the current countess responded that they only had the one tiara, a small thing, visably seen in Winterhalter's painting of Queen Victoria.
It really is a delightful little story

__________________Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill